Claim: Disney forced the removal of murals featuring their cartoon figures from the walls of three Florida day care centers.
Status: TRUE
Origins:
Disney discovered in 1989 that three Hallandale, Florida, day care centers had 5-foot-high likenesses of trademarked Disney characters such as Mickey Mouse, Minnie Mouse, and Goofy painted on their walls, Disney threatened to go to court if the centers did not remove the drawings. The threat of legal action did not need to be carried out, as the centers replaced the drawings with cartoon characters belonging to Universal Studios Florida and Hanna-Barbera Productions, who volunteered the use of their character art as part of a publicity ploy.
Disney demanded that the unauthorized 5-foot-high painted figures of Disney characters on the walls of Very Important Babies Daycare, Good Godmother Daycare, and Temple Messianique (all in Hallandale, Florida) be removed for valid business reasons: infringements must be fought in order to keep trademarks intact; other Disney character licensees would have grounds to object if Disney provided inexpensive (or free) licenses to the centers (which are, after all, profit-making enterprises); and the use of Disney characters falsely suggested Disney's affiliation with the day care
Given Bill's works are in the public domain, as are almost all of the works Cliff and crew summarize. The ones that aren't, they typically do get licenses.
Try painting Snow White and the Seven Dwarves (the Disney versions) on the wall of your local daycare center and you'll find out quickly how mistaken you are.
They vigorously defend what they consider theirs. The reason they don't go after Good Times and etc. isn't because they don't want to, it's because they already know they'll loose. They have trademarks on the visual representations but the stories themselves are public domain.
Disney is STILL a major copyright lobbist. And right now what they'd like to do is come up with a legal way of shutting down Good Times and their ilk. Because Disney DOES consider Snow White and every other story they've touched to be their own.
On one hand we are talking about borrowing ideas in broad strokes and molding them into your own 'unique' idea with seperate twists and different details.
On the other hand we are talking about taking another's work, and simply taking all the details in it and compiling them into a work you call your own.
It should also be noted that J.K. never had a problem with the encylopedia till the people who were running it decided to make a book out of it and sell it. When it was still a 'just' fan created work she actually supported it from all I've heard.
In other words, OSC once again proves he that he's missed the point. Apples and alarm clocks.
"No, that's ridiculous -- it would be at least a thousand times too slow [for graphics]," he said. "Adding four more cores, for example, is not going anywhere near close to what is required."
The roasting is done daily, to allow the beans to 'out gas'.
Most of what the Javabot does takes place on demand. When a customer orders the coffee, the beans shoot from the storage bins over to the grinding unit and drop down into the brewing machine. It takes only about 30 sec to convey, grind and brew the coffee beans.
The roasting process, meanwhile, usually takes place daily but not per individual beverage. "The beans need time to cool and out-gas after roasting. Most people wouldn't want to wait around that long," says Michael Hodor, Roasting Plant's head of technology. So after roasting in small batches, the beans are conveyed into the storage bins, whose tubular shape and bottom-mounted metering system ensure the beans exit on a first-in, first-out basis. .... Scaling up the Javabot won't likely prove to be too big a deal. "It's been designed for scaleability from the beginning," Youney says. His software, for instance, has all the hooks needed to add more coffee machines and bins. "The software even has a whole bunch of features we didn't use in the prototype," he says. These include Web-based ordering, customer profiles tied to bar codes and a slick roasting scheduler that uses fuzzy logic to predict demand patterns. And the modular design of the bins, with their self-contained metering systems and on-board microprocessors, allows the system to grow with a few extra tube runs.
Caswell says he plans to take full advantage of that scaleability as he opens new Roasting Plant shops. "Another nice thing about automation is that it allows us to replicate our concept over and over again," he says.
Born in Toronto, Ontario, Canada to Trotskyist teachers, Doctorow was raised in an activist household, working in the nuclear disarmament movement and as a Greenpeace campaigner as a child. He later served on the board of directors for the Grindstone Island Co-operative on Big Rideau Lake in Ontario, helping to run a conference center devoted to peace and social justice education and activist training. He received his high school diploma from SEED School, a free school in Toronto, and dropped out of four universities without attaining a degree.
Doctorow moved to Los Angeles, California in mid-2006 from London, England, where he had worked as European Affairs Coordinator for the Electronic Frontier Foundation for four years, helping to set up the Open Rights Group, before quitting to pursue writing full-time in January 2006. Upon his departure, Doctorow was named a Fellow of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Doctorow spent the 2006-2007 academic year teaching as a visiting professor at the University of Southern California, despite not holding any academic degree. He then returned to London. He is a frequent public speaker on copyright issues.
Doctorow's daughter with Alice Taylor, Poesy Emmeline Fibonacci Nautilus Taylor Doctorow, was born on 3 February 2008.
Cory's parents have suggested that he is related to author E.L. Doctorow, but E.L. Doctorow himself could not confirm or deny the family connection.
---- Don't know, sounds like someone I'd care about...
With respect, this would only work in an ideal society where it would be useless in the first place.
Question 1. Who determines what list you get on? If its the same people that are deciding this today, the only list with people on it will be "List 3".
Question 2. In this day and age, do you honestly think that once you get on "List 2" or "List 3" you'll ever be able to drop off? There are people out there right now, compling private databases off these lists for the purposes of ensuring these folk "never again" have a private life.
Even if you could get the people from Q1 to agree that you should be dropped down to "List 1", once Pandora's box is opened....
Because most people are convinced that this particular class of offenders can't be rehabilitated and therefore releasing them to the general public is a mistake in and of itself. In order to ensure that they are proven right, they have decided that the "Scarlet Letter" method of tracking these people is justifiable.
If this range of classification was limited to people who were actually offenders who were likely to commit their crimes again, then this could almost be understandable. However, and especially in conservative regions, often there are completely trivial offenses which one can commit which cause you to be lumped into this group. Offenses which, while not exactly something to be proud off, are not at all indicative of being a 'sexual' offender. Like public urination. Like mooning someone. Like being a 15 year old caught making out with another 15 year old.
The original idea was sound. There are people out there who have skewed enough thought patterns and responses that they are always at danger of commiting this sort of crime. Keeping closer track of them and preventing them from living in "target rich" environments is reasonable. Unfortunately, the implementation was flawed from the begining, and I'm not talking about this particular site but the lists themselves.
"Don't be evil." Googlers generally apply those words to how we serve our users. But "Don't be evil" is much more than that. Yes, it's about providing our users unbiased access to information, focusing on their needs and giving them the best products and services that we can. But it's also about doing the right thing more generally - following the law, acting honorably and treating each other with respect.
The Google Code of Conduct is one of the ways we put "Don't be evil" into practice. It's built around the recognition that everything we do in connection with our work at Google will be, and should be, measured against the highest possible standards of ethical business conduct. We set the bar that high for practical as well as aspirational reasons: We hire great people who work hard to build great products, and it's essential that we build an environment of trust - among ourselves and with our users. That trust and mutual respect underlie our success, and we need to earn it every day.
So, please do read the Code, and follow it, always bearing in mind that each of us has a personal responsibility to incorporate, and to encourage other Googlers to incorporate, the principles of the Code into our work. And if you have a question or ever think that one of your fellow Googlers or the company as a whole may be falling short of our commitment, don't be silent. We want -- and need -- to hear from you.
Who Must Follow Our Code?
We expect all of our employees and Board members to know and follow the Code. Failure to do so can result in disciplinary action, including termination of employment. Moreover, while the Code is specifically written for Google employees and Board members, we expect Google contractors, consultants and others who may be temporarily assigned to perform work or services for Google to follow the Code in connection with their work for us. Failure of a Google contractor or consultant or other covered service provider to follow the Code can result in termination of their relationship with Google........
Substitute Microsoft for Google and yes, people would be far more up in arms about it.
"Why?" you ask? Do you really need that spelt out for you?
Microsoft has based its entire business history on unethical actions and slippery business tactics. They did not get ahead in the world by being the best at their products; they got ahead by screwing over anyone they could get away with screwing.
Google on the other hand has based its rep and business practices on delivering the 'best' product. They haven't gotten ahead by double dealing, underhanded tactics, or screwing over people.
Yes, Google HAS done things that people don't agree with. But none of the things that people point out are deliberate attempts to screw with people.
Microsoft got in bed with companies telling them that they were specifically planning on doing X, while secretly planning on doing Y. They did this, as has been documented, to give Microsoft an edge in its own competing product.
Google has had van drivers accidentally drive up someone's driveway while taking low resolution pictures. One had malice in their intent; one simply made a mistake.
Microsoft stole, actually STOLE, someone's code and distributed it as part of Win9x. They didn't even bother to remove the copyright strings in the binary and only stopped distributing it when they were found guilty by a jury (see Stac Electronics).
Google had two engineers in their off time who copied an extremely generic idea and placed it in their gallery of "look what you can do with this new toy we have!" and took it down when it became apparent that there would be hard feelings over it.
There is a reason why Microsoft gets the shit treatment and Google doesn't. And it's not because everyone here has "Google fever". It's because so far Google acts responsibly and ethically while so far Microsoft acts predatory and unethically.
"We're flattered Google thinks Campfire is a great product," said Jason Fried, 37signals CEO and co-founder. "We're just disappointed that they stooped so low to basically copy it feature for feature, layout for layout. We thought that would be beneath Google, but maybe its time to reevaluate what they stand for."
If you want music that matches your tastes, look for it. Don't bitch that the local sheepmart doesn't carry it. Sheepmarts cater to sheep. If you aren't willing to be a sheep then don't bitch about the fact that the selection isn't tailored for you.
If you honestly CAN'T figure out how to look for it, then you need to turn in your nick.
Slashdot Mirror
Not to be confused with the Lolitabyte, which is a unit of measure peculiar to 2chan style boards...
This was Florida though, why do you think it's a nursing home state... competency tests are easy there. (removes tongue from cheek).
http://www.snopes.com/disney/wdco/daycare.asp
Claim: Disney forced the removal of murals featuring their cartoon figures from the walls of three Florida day care centers.
Status: TRUE
Origins:
Disney discovered in 1989 that three Hallandale, Florida, day care centers had 5-foot-high likenesses of trademarked Disney characters such as Mickey Mouse, Minnie Mouse, and Goofy painted on their walls, Disney threatened to go to court if the centers did not remove the drawings. The threat of legal action did not need to be carried out, as the centers replaced the drawings with cartoon characters belonging to Universal Studios Florida and Hanna-Barbera Productions, who volunteered the use of their character art as part of a publicity ploy.
Disney demanded that the unauthorized 5-foot-high painted figures of Disney characters on the walls of Very Important Babies Daycare, Good Godmother Daycare, and Temple Messianique (all in Hallandale, Florida) be removed for valid business reasons: infringements must be fought in order to keep trademarks intact; other Disney character licensees would have grounds to object if Disney provided inexpensive (or free) licenses to the centers (which are, after all, profit-making enterprises); and the use of Disney characters falsely suggested Disney's affiliation with the day care
Given Bill's works are in the public domain, as are almost all of the works Cliff and crew summarize. The ones that aren't, they typically do get licenses.
Try painting Snow White and the Seven Dwarves (the Disney versions) on the wall of your local daycare center and you'll find out quickly how mistaken you are.
They vigorously defend what they consider theirs. The reason they don't go after Good Times and etc. isn't because they don't want to, it's because they already know they'll loose. They have trademarks on the visual representations but the stories themselves are public domain.
Disney is STILL a major copyright lobbist. And right now what they'd like to do is come up with a legal way of shutting down Good Times and their ilk. Because Disney DOES consider Snow White and every other story they've touched to be their own.
On one hand we are talking about borrowing ideas in broad strokes and molding them into your own 'unique' idea with seperate twists and different details.
On the other hand we are talking about taking another's work, and simply taking all the details in it and compiling them into a work you call your own.
It should also be noted that J.K. never had a problem with the encylopedia till the people who were running it decided to make a book out of it and sell it. When it was still a 'just' fan created work she actually supported it from all I've heard.
In other words, OSC once again proves he that he's missed the point. Apples and alarm clocks.
He then quipped, "Go away kid, ya bother me!"
I think this is a case of the reverse actually...
Any sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence.
Sadly, Google Hell has been shelved till someone can figure out a way to implement it without breaking the "Don't be evil" rule.
http://www.robotstxt.org/
Dang, that was hard. Damn you, GOOGLE! Damn you to HELL! You blew it up! You finially blew up the web!
Or not.
Pirate smilie with a hook caught in their bad eye?
That's why the roasting is done daily and not per individual cup. See my comment to the person above you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cory_Doctorow
Born in Toronto, Ontario, Canada to Trotskyist teachers, Doctorow was raised in an activist household, working in the nuclear disarmament movement and as a Greenpeace campaigner as a child. He later served on the board of directors for the Grindstone Island Co-operative on Big Rideau Lake in Ontario, helping to run a conference center devoted to peace and social justice education and activist training. He received his high school diploma from SEED School, a free school in Toronto, and dropped out of four universities without attaining a degree.
Doctorow moved to Los Angeles, California in mid-2006 from London, England, where he had worked as European Affairs Coordinator for the Electronic Frontier Foundation for four years, helping to set up the Open Rights Group, before quitting to pursue writing full-time in January 2006. Upon his departure, Doctorow was named a Fellow of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Doctorow spent the 2006-2007 academic year teaching as a visiting professor at the University of Southern California, despite not holding any academic degree. He then returned to London. He is a frequent public speaker on copyright issues.
Doctorow's daughter with Alice Taylor, Poesy Emmeline Fibonacci Nautilus Taylor Doctorow, was born on 3 February 2008.
Cory's parents have suggested that he is related to author E.L. Doctorow, but E.L. Doctorow himself could not confirm or deny the family connection.
----
Don't know, sounds like someone I'd care about...
With respect, this would only work in an ideal society where it would be useless in the first place.
Question 1. Who determines what list you get on? If its the same people that are deciding this today, the only list with people on it will be "List 3".
Question 2. In this day and age, do you honestly think that once you get on "List 2" or "List 3" you'll ever be able to drop off? There are people out there right now, compling private databases off these lists for the purposes of ensuring these folk "never again" have a private life.
Even if you could get the people from Q1 to agree that you should be dropped down to "List 1", once Pandora's box is opened....
Because most people are convinced that this particular class of offenders can't be rehabilitated and therefore releasing them to the general public is a mistake in and of itself. In order to ensure that they are proven right, they have decided that the "Scarlet Letter" method of tracking these people is justifiable.
If this range of classification was limited to people who were actually offenders who were likely to commit their crimes again, then this could almost be understandable. However, and especially in conservative regions, often there are completely trivial offenses which one can commit which cause you to be lumped into this group. Offenses which, while not exactly something to be proud off, are not at all indicative of being a 'sexual' offender. Like public urination. Like mooning someone. Like being a 15 year old caught making out with another 15 year old.
The original idea was sound. There are people out there who have skewed enough thought patterns and responses that they are always at danger of commiting this sort of crime. Keeping closer track of them and preventing them from living in "target rich" environments is reasonable. Unfortunately, the implementation was flawed from the begining, and I'm not talking about this particular site but the lists themselves.
Here?
Compare the side by sides presented in the article and try to claim again that the two engineers copied anything.
There is a reason why you can't copyright an UI or an idea but can copyright source code.
Google's people did nothing wrong.
Substitute Microsoft for Google and yes, people would be far more up in arms about it.
"Why?" you ask? Do you really need that spelt out for you?
Microsoft has based its entire business history on unethical actions and slippery business tactics. They did not get ahead in the world by being the best at their products; they got ahead by screwing over anyone they could get away with screwing.
Google on the other hand has based its rep and business practices on delivering the 'best' product. They haven't gotten ahead by double dealing, underhanded tactics, or screwing over people.
Yes, Google HAS done things that people don't agree with. But none of the things that people point out are deliberate attempts to screw with people.
Microsoft got in bed with companies telling them that they were specifically planning on doing X, while secretly planning on doing Y. They did this, as has been documented, to give Microsoft an edge in its own competing product.
Google has had van drivers accidentally drive up someone's driveway while taking low resolution pictures. One had malice in their intent; one simply made a mistake.
Microsoft stole, actually STOLE, someone's code and distributed it as part of Win9x. They didn't even bother to remove the copyright strings in the binary and only stopped distributing it when they were found guilty by a jury (see Stac Electronics).
Google had two engineers in their off time who copied an extremely generic idea and placed it in their gallery of "look what you can do with this new toy we have!" and took it down when it became apparent that there would be hard feelings over it.
There is a reason why Microsoft gets the shit treatment and Google doesn't. And it's not because everyone here has "Google fever". It's because so far Google acts responsibly and ethically while so far Microsoft acts predatory and unethically.
Pointless question as both will answer to the name "Sheep".
Welcome to the tubes young grasshopper.
If you want music that matches your tastes, look for it. Don't bitch that the local sheepmart doesn't carry it. Sheepmarts cater to sheep. If you aren't willing to be a sheep then don't bitch about the fact that the selection isn't tailored for you.
If you honestly CAN'T figure out how to look for it, then you need to turn in your nick.
I think you know now why they scrapped the handhelds....
No, I can't think of any reason why no one has done that before. Dr. Frankenstein.
Damn, Mike Godwin has a nice page.